Heel: The closest of all parenting relationships (and the goal of every good, gentle parent)

Most parents in the United States believe in solving problems with their child using punishment, which places them in fear of control from parents. Few parents know what it is like to totally accept their child, or children in general.

Heeling to children, and vice versa, comes from Christian love, denoted by the Greek root word αγαπαο (Latin: agapao) and refers to God striking reverent terror and fear in the sinful hearts of parents, with reverent terror being translated by the Greek root word ψοβός (Latin: phobos) and refers to being struck with low-level righteous anxiety leading to a change of heart in relation to children, then surrender to God through children, giving up the fight in terms of adult power and control, placing such power and control at the footstool of children, with them treated as royalty, succumbing righteously to the lawful and binding authority that is their children's every need, including attachment needs. It is taking up the cross and sacrificing for children just as Christ did, rendering oneself beneath one's child, devaluing oneself as a caregiver and servant to one's child, leading to good works just for the sake of doing good things for a child, expecting absolutely nothing in return, being grateful for the good you see done to children by your hand. However, rewards usually exist. See Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things, as is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to providing custody, meaning a child resting in the loving care and providence of parents, being able to be oneself while resting with parents and say anything to them, receiving care, support, and protection from parents, owing absolutely nothing in return from parents, yet nonetheless showing gratitude by way of hearing the voice of parents, understanding based on developmental capacity, then listening to and heeding that voice, out of the reassurance and familiarity of the voice of parents and not fear of punishment through that out. The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and is one of the Greek words that refer to the offenses in the legal context of the Bible, meaning the torts and damages system under the Eighth Commandment, including assault and battery laws that extend to children in terms of protection, summed up in the New Testament as the slightest of personal offense perceived by the child, stemming from entitlement, meaning the Greek root word πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektês) and refers to wanting things from children, or wanting them to do things for you, to the point of seeking to impose said want onto a child, leading to abuse by way of offense perceived from said entitled attitude of adults.

It is a terror-stricken feeling that is low-level, in a driving, responsible way. "You better treat me with respect". It is a form of reverent terror leading to parents being in lockstep with their child, meaning the reverse, with children trusting parents enough to instinctively follow them, and parents to feel stuck to their child, submitting to them at the heel in righteous terror and fear. Fathers in ancient Israel righteously righteously deified their children from a healthy distance, with mothers deifying their children closer, seeing them as little extensions of God, taking a vulnerable request for a need, especially attachment needs, as a booming edict from God Himself, shaking and quaking in the light and joy that children naturally give to adults, terrorized righteously by the sheer vulnerability of the child, knowing they could take offense at any time with one wrong step, about anything.

The depraved and entitled parents will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven! Let them burn in the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Disproving collective responsibility - Why if you do the crime, you do the time

Collective responsibility is the collective unit and attitude towards child abuse and neglect in the United States. I do not believe in it, per se. Nadine Block is a fellow advocate whom I respect, but we disagree on how to prosecute and prevent child abuse and neglect in the United States. I think they did it, so they shouldn't ruin it for everyone else.

This all comes from a flawed biblical understanding of leading your neighbor astray. There was a mechanism for it, but all sin must come with intent. It says in the Ninth Commandment, in Exodus 20:16 KJV:

Thou shalt not bear witness against thy neighbour.

The Greek root word denoting perjury in the Bible is λοιδορος (Latin: loidoros) and refers to an evasive, defensive attitude leading to 1) False accusations and/or 2) Evading justice or assisting in facilitating a moral crime. None of this means simply being able to protect a child from abuse, but failing to do so. However, refusing to believe a child who claims abuse from an adult? That is perjury, alongside all those who stand in defense of the perjorious adult who ends up being an abuser alongside the child, until narrowed down by repentance as to whom is working with the perpetrator. Pro-social hostage is taking everyone who defends the abuse of the child, naming them all as a collective monolith. However, even then, all individuals involved are responsible for their individual part in the abuse, and individuals other than the perpetrator are only guilty once pronounced as accomplices aiding and abetting the abuser by way of collaboration and complicity with the acts of the abuser, and only from commission in a way that supports the acts of the abuser.

I disagree with one application of collective responsibility, which is mandated reporting, thus making anyone who comes into contact with children guilty alongside the perpetrator here in Pennsylvania for not stepping in. It shouldn't be about stepping in. Child. Cell phone. One phone call. Children should be empowered to name their own perpetrator, being educated about their rights in school. If the child went person to person, and was not believed, I'd say yes, lock the whole family up. However, most of the time, when the child is informed about their options, will direct their parents to general protective services (GPS) from the county Children and Youth Services agency, in which case I actually agree with giving even sexually abusive parents the services they need to break abusive cycles and protect children from their own sin nature.

Ultimately, nobody should be held legally responsible under the civil law for "not stopping the perpetrator", as the parental rights pedophile hysteria madness exclaims at the loudest of notes for parents and similarly charged adults to feel guilty about. Forgive yourselves. They did it, and they are responsible. Bystanders are only responsible on a collective individual level, in the shape of fireworks, if they defend the abuse inflicted upon the child, whereas an honest person would just bawl and cry on an issue such as illegal child abuse such as sexual abuse. 

At-risk adults are capable of receiving the help they need, when they are motivated, and when it is available in their community. Depends what the local culture is like. Here in my hometown of Reading, Pennsylvania, a pedophile can see a therapist and not worry, since Pennsylvania law states that the therapist, on the pedophile's end, can only report once a crime has been confessed to, and the client/patient is aged 14 and older. I support this legal setup as a start, but ultimately think the child should be the one reporting, and should be empowered by society to, and otherwise, at-risk adults should seek help before the fact, thus preventing abuse before it becomes a legal issue, meaning stopping antisocial parental instincts that could lead to entitlement, and centering them.

I do use pro-social hostage. That's where adult power and control comes in, meaning adults as a collective are imposing their entitlement onto children, and so you hold every individual adult hostage, and then narrow down while using a trampleboard, marking all adults found guilty after being presumed innocent for deletion, pointing to God and promoting their evil in terms of knowledge thereof. All victim accusations automatically paint the perpetrator guilty, and all those who stand in the way of his/her prosecution, and all those who worked with the offender enough to defend their abuse. Only those who assisted the abuser should be named alongside the abuser, or else anyone who covered it up. No innocent bystander is guilty, no matter how still their actions, because some of us are afraid of such things, and freeze. Allow the child to report her abuser herself, with no statute of limitations attached. But, refusing to believe a child's moral legal testimony as a plaintiff against her parent/abuser makes one guilty of the worst perjury that can be cooked up, meaning hold all the abuse deniers hostage, round them all up, and arrest them all. Set an good and just example so that children are believed in the future, because the abuser can be anyone, and is most likely every adult you meet - and you surely have one in you as an adult.

From a bird's eye view, parents, and all adults who promote them in the course of their evil and entitled acts of abuse, are guilty as a collective while sitting in my perch from above, but on the ground, all adults are to be presumed innocent as individuals, until they rear their heads and show their parent/adult guilt in entitled format, defending their "right" to abuse a child. "Rights" statements can be seen as automatic admissions to abuse worthy of investigation.

I wasn't believed as a child. Row of promote fingers towards parents. Go after REAL criminals, meaning all of the adults that pointed to my parents - that sort of thing is still legal in 2021. Don't shame pedophiles for having a sexual thought. A pedophile didn't abuse me; a parent abused me, and now I am a pedophile. Just makes it much easier to spot the anti-spanking trauma.

What to do about temper tantrums (pro-social punching bag)

Most all, if not all, parents have to deal with tantrums of some sort in their child, with escalating levels of severity. Some children simply cry, some kick and scream, and some beat up their parents. All require a bit of cushioning from parents, in the form of a punching bag.

Children should throw tantrums. It is a way for them to grieve demands that were denied due to the word "no" or its various variants. Children are going to kick and scream, and carry on, the more you say "no". They are new to this earth, and few young children have experienced loss. So, they react to loss that means little unless you are conditioned to be as leveled as I am to their context, and latch onto their emotions and relate more to them than the parents.

It says in Hebrews 12:11 KJV:

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

The Greek root word translated "grievous" is λυπέ (Latin: lupe) and refers to emotional anguish in parents, perhaps from constant tantrums. Parenting was never intended by God to be easy, but the more one advances through it, the more rewarding it is at the end, in terms of self-control and other rewards. The Greek root word translated "chastening" is παιδεία (Latin: paideia) and refers to the chastening of the Lord, meaning here holding in grief from a tantrumming child because your child cannot, holding space for their upset, frustration, and even aggressive outbursts, being their punching bag from day one. It is a warm yet reassuring, calm type of stoicism, meaning one that remains silent in a listening type of way, instinctively acknowledging the frustrated words of a child, in a way that nods and reassures that you are listening. I myself find myself doing this even to adults.

It says in Ephesians 6:1-4 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, as this is right. Honor thy father and mother, as this is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live upon the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

The Greek root word translated "nurture" is the same as "chastening" in Heb. 12:11, meaning παιδεία, meaning again the chastening of the Lord for parents. This refers to listening to a child in a way that is calm and disciplined, but nonetheless in a warm and caring manner, holding space for them by centering one's emotions for the child, because the child has not yet learned to control their own emotions, and likely, wherever they are on the chronological age spectrum, likely will not for years. Ultimately, it is centering oneself by listening to a child's upsets, modeling self-control and self-discipline to the child in the process. The Greek root word translated "admonition" is νουθεσία (Latin: nouthesia) and refers to the admonition of the Lord, necessary limits and boundaries, namely the word "no" and its various variants. Negative limits set should be rare, particularly for younger children, as children below a certain age have no concept of what is acceptable behavior in society, and on top of that, have trouble communicating their needs apart from crying and/or aggressive outbursts. Children have something to say, for sure, but don't have the language skills to say it. But, in the rare case that a child does something they are capable of not doing carelessly, correct them with the word "no", and if they really respect you, that's all it should take. This is qualified by the Greek root word translated "provoke...to wrath" is παροργιζο (Latin: parorgizo) and refers the offenses in the legal context of the Bible, meaning the torts and damages under the Eighth Commandment, including assault and battery laws extended to children in terms of protection, referenced and summed up as the slightest of offense against a child, stemming from entitled intent, meaning out of willfulness or recklessness in terms of harm or damages. Punishment was only legal as a sentence for a crime for adults, meaning an adult who was literate in the Law and thus was expected to know better.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to providing custody of children, meaning where children rest securely and safely in the loving providence of parents, with parents providing for their children's every need - food, water, shelter, transportation, and attachment, but especially the last one - with parents heeling to the every need of their child, and children aside of them, with children owing nothing in relation to parents, yet children listening to parents nonetheless as an instinctive show of gratitude, like a pull or gentle tug to stay along with parents, especially mothers, in a safe, reassuring way of listening to parents because they listened to you first. That is the order of the family - parents listen to children, if they want it in return. Providing custody, under biblical law, is a form of legal power of attorney where the child where the child owes nothing in return to parents, and owes no responsibility or culpability to them, with the parents giving without receiving anything in return, sacrificing and taking up the cross just as Christ did for His children. All loyalty to parents was earned by how parents supplied the demands of their children.

There are degrees of applicability of pro-social punching bag as an acronym, but parenting is a passive-assertive trade. A parent should be a punching bag at least to the tirades that come from children when they hear the word "no", and should turn the other cheek, accepting even violence as a necessary part of life. Frequent physical violence is likely due to either a prolonged communication deficit, or else a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder where children and adults both with the disorder either become aggressive when becoming extremely manic or extremely depressed, in a way that replicates a seizure. If the outbursts appear to be epileptic in terms of loss of control, including memory loss of the incident, this should be a reason for a test run of mood stabilizer - even if the child is autistic, those behaviors aren't inherent autistic traits, but that of related mental disorders, namely mood disorders. The right medication sent me on a journey to self-improvement. My only regret is not getting it sooner. In such cases, attachment parenting only serves as a parent being a safe outlet to discharge frustration, irritation, and anger, but can be educational once the child is medicated, usually in their mid-teens, when they can reflect off of all the mistakes they made as a child, and learn from them.

Parents in ancient Israel and adjoining churches did not shame children for throwing tantrums, but reassured and validated children, usually through physical forms of reassurance such as co-sleeping and cuddling, particularly with skin-to-skin contact. There are different levels of listening to a tantrum in terms of intensity, and some means are physical in an affectionate, nurturing manner, meaning like a big hug, and these should be legal in public schools as well, with any male teacher in particular who feel insecure about a female student hugging them being suspect of adult sexual entitlement.

These sorts of solutions are often advocated in the mainstream media for children with autism, but I have autism, and I think these positive methods would work with any child. It is a known fact by most that a child with autism needs to be listened to, all the while ordinary, non-autistic children with the same communication deficits that are inherent of all children just get punished, and the "he needs a good whack on the rear end" is a reason to deny autism in a child. Most all childhood misbehavior and aggression is due to communication barriers. They can't put their emotions into words, so they cause a ruckus instead, leaving it to the adults around to interpret what need the child is advocating. A 2-year-old can hear and listen to verbal instructions from a parent, and memorize language, but cannot express it even though they know it, and so they just go off in the store, because they can't tell you what is going on. Just take the screaming and frustration, including the "I hate you mommy", and be kind and courteous in the face of that upset, listening to and validating the child's feelings, using the occasional reflective statements in the course of listening.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke children to anger will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them burn in the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Verbal defiance in the Bible: Why "back talk" to parents is not banned in the Bible

Many parents, if not most, don't like "back talk", meaning children having a say of their own, and telling parents off about an unmet need masked as a benign want. Many gentle parents may brag about gently setting limits to kindly ask for respect from children. I myself, when around children, take the heat and face the music, knowing my fearful and reverent place in relation to children - and I don't hate them one bit for bossing me around. I like it.

The concept of back talk doesn't exist under biblical law. It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things, as is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to providing custody under the Law, meaning that children rested in the loving grace and providence of parents, being able to be themselves, tell their parents everything, say anything when parents were around, with children owing nothing in return to parents, yet showing gratitude by listening anyway. This state of a child comes from Christian love, denoted by the Greek root word translated αγαπαο (Latin: agapao) and refers to being convicted of one's depraved and entitled sin nature in relation to children, leading to surrendering oneself to the Lord through one's child, giving up all adult power and control over them, sacrificing and taking up the cross for children just as Christ did for His children, rendering oneself beneath one's child, devaluing yourself as a mere caregiver and servant, leading to good works just for the sake of good works, with the child being extended by God for such good works, expecting absolutely nothing in return, grateful for every good deed done for a child. 

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and literally translates to "stir up" as in "stirring the pot" in relation to the anger of the child in response to punishment, referring to the offenses in the legal context of the Bible, namely the torts and damages system, meaning here the assault and battery laws under the Law, which include the slightest of offense perceived by the child. This means spanking is banned, as that was how the Law was interpreted in both the Old and New Testament, with all corporal punishment being judicial in nature, and a rare event that went down in Israelite national history.

Children were allowed to talk back to parents in ancient Israel and adjoining churches, by custom, meaning children could bellow with even aggressive anger in order to demand for a need, and sometimes, this just meant the child had a disorder that could not be treated by medication that wasn't invented yet. Infancy lasted until age 3 in that culture, with mothers fashioning themselves as punching bags for their children, at that age and even older. Children were deified in a pro-social manner by their fathers, meaning fathers had reverent respect for the boundaries set by the child, in a shake and quake type of way, leading to them being passive in terms of being led on family activities by their wife and children. Fathers then were very warm, as were the homes they led. Children were absolutely allowed to express themselves, and parents most of the time found a compromise when a child couldn't get whatever they wanted, or else found a reason to give children everything but things that are either inappropriate or unattainable.

Simply talking back to parents was a non-issue, even under the law. Striking a parent was only an issue when you were an adult, and even then, most parents were inclined to defend their child in court, not take them to court. Striking a child was illegal in the sense that in Hebrew circles, it was a sudden, shocking reaction by a parent, leading to an even more sudden shock by everyone else, meaning the punitive parent became a social pariah until they learned to kick the habit. If their child was demanding in public, perhaps they were blamed for being derelict in their duties as a parent. Children, by rights, had the right to reverent rebellion that kept parents in check, meaning harmony in the family imposed by the child being assertive to parents, and not being required to mince words in doing so, especially within a home setting, where children would run around, maybe knock things over, and the children were presumed at a young age to be too immature to be burdened with cleaning it up.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them burn in the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Why corporal punishment is the norm - the history of it all

Many people blame corporal punishment on the Bible, saying the rise of Christendom was the rise of corporal punishment of children. Children in the Bible were well-treated, meaning deified by their fathers, and nurtured by their mothers, as extensions of God. So why does society still spank?

It says in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

This commandment is a common one in the Apostle Paul's writing. Epistles are similar to a district attorney saying "these individual parents know who they are, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law". Paul had a legal personality, which God used to preserve, for the time-being, the Jewish tradition of child-friendliness in the Christian church. Many fathers of Hellenistic descent brought with them a spanking and corporal punishment habit. A father who was found guilty of punishing his children was flamed out by the entire church community, in a calculated yet reckless collective act of disfellowship and shunning. This often started with the divorce of a wife, taking the children with her, with the other men in the church guarding her for her safety.

Rome, after a strange, Otherworldly incident involving Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire, Rome became Christian. This was an omen, in retrospect, to the demolition of child-friendliness in Christendom, and replacing it with reverent child hatred, meaning "if you don't hate children at least some of the time, and allow it, you are an abuser", when there is zero biblical evidence of any credibility for that. All corporal punishment, in practice, was meant for adults who committed a capital offense, meaning children cannot be deemed guilty, at all, for anything.

The pagan cultures of Europe were very harsh and brutal to children, meaning whippings and scare tactics. The German version of Santa Claus comes down from the hills and whips "naughty" children with a tree branch. The Roman Catholic Church preferred pandering to the pagan cultures they held under their umbrella, over forcibly converting them, and part of this pandering was antisocial "tradition", meaning allowing pagan cultures to practice their own parenting customs, which tended to be controlling and punitive in nature. It's called European folk traditions, and in modern anti-spanking Europe, those who cling to these traditions too loudly are seen as the offenders against children. 

The American church is infiltrated with Catholic idolatrous hatred of children, meaning that's where it all started - the advent of Roman Catholicism. Our founding Judaeo-Christian values prohibit any form of entitlement, including using violence to control a child. Most Americans don't know that anti-spanking laws already exist in the Bible. But, more individual Christians all over the theological spectrum are open to anti-spanking beliefs, with even conservative churches dropping statements commanding parents to spank. The Jehovah's Witnesses used to forbid gentle parenting, with an elder at the Kingdom Hall spanking a child. The Catholic church used to encourage parents to do similar things to children. Things are advancing in both conservative denominations.

Who is at fault for religious child abuse? I blame the parents themselves. They actually could have been the Christians they claimed to be while not punishing their children or even lifting a finger, but they chose to be like the hive, and not think for the selves. I am not one to hate whole churches, but individual parents in such churches. Who knows? An Adventist or Mennonite family might be gentle parents like I am? I hate the concept of church bashing, as I have more class than that as an advocate. Most parents in any given American church denomination spank (not so much in Europe these days), but I must presume innocence, and only call them out when they rear their heads. Religion is not abuse. Misuse of religion coupled with punishment is.

I have a legal trauma, in textual format. Section 509 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code is the most offensive law to my trauma. I don't want laws like this to even exist. When I feel uncomfortable about a parent punishing a child, I want to be able to call the police and have the parents ticketed and investigated for harassment or disorderly conduct, depending on whether the parents are in an apartment complex abusing their children or not. Spanking is a mainstay of the "reasonable chastisement" defense. The defense ultimately comes from the Roman legal concept of patrias potestas, and since these laws are conflated with pagan custom, they are idolatry when invoked by a parent, as Roman law has pagan origins, as does the English common law in areas of the law that can be linked to the Bible. Most can. This one can't. I don't even want any punishment or violence against children to exist, meaning erase it and wipe spanking off the face of the earth. It sickens me to know it is here. Any legal excuse threatens my trauma. Put a link to that defense in my inbox, and I'll be enraged. Otherwise, I find my way around triggers.

The Bible never was intended by God to endorse violence and entitlement against children. That comes from imposed extraterritorial law from the United Kingdom, meaning case law, namely that of the case of R v. Hopley (1860), where the High Court of England ruled in favor of corporal punishment for "every parent or guardian" in England and Wales. Before then, it was implied and the authorities looked the other way in the United States, as battery laws did not exist before then, with many legal disputes being able to be solved by a duel...The Bible doesn't allow for any of this, yet the Bible is often cited in defense of these horrendous laws that allow abusers to escape from justice through a legal loophole. 

God's Law is above the law of the land, and thus provocation to anger is an offense perceived by the child (see again Col. 3:21) in a court of law, usually with the mother as a legal advocate, and sometimes someone outside the home in relation to a father (fathers could not divorce the mother of their children - the mother had to officially sign away from him). A divorce over something like that gained the attention of the collective of the church community, in which case the excommunication and shunning of the derelict and entitled parent was very brutal. It's called collective gaslighting, meaning they were flamed out of the church community as a form of disfellowship ritual...The legality of corporal punishment didn't even come from this country, or our objective morals from the Bible. This sort of thing needs to go, now!

Why getting angry at a child is sin - anger abstinence in parenting

 Many parents think they have the right to get angry with their children. As a parent, under natural law, your rights are limited. Anger is simply a feeling, not a right of any parent, and butthurt feelings from "back talk" make parents a bunch of snowflakes.

It says in Matthew 5:21-22 KJV:

You have heard that it was said of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother shall: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of fire.

This prohibits expressed anger or angry intent except when held back and channeled into court exchanges, meaning an exchange mano-a-mano between two adults, with a plaintiff interrogating a defendant. Anger is to be saved for righteous judgment, judging other adults by way of verbal rebuke. However, children are not legal subjections, as they are ignorant as to what is right or wrong, and simply need to be taught.

Anger outside of God-recognized courtroom space, meaning never with children, was seen as entitlement, with parents punishing their children with their anger being guilty of both entitlement and perjury, with perjury referring to moralizing behavior that should not be moralized.

The alternatives to getting angry are stated in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things, as is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to providing custody over a child, meaning children being provided for, with children being in a state of rest and security in relation to parents, being able to share anything and everything under the sun with parents, demanding needs from parents, with parents supplying the every need of a child, with children owing nothing in return to parents. Parents are to love their children through Christian love, as denoted by the Greek root word αγαπαο (Latin: agapao) and refers to reverent fear and terror being struck into a parent by the needs of a child demanded, leading to surrendering to God through one's child, turning oneself in for one's own adult power and control against children, just like Christ turned Himself in for his children - for a crime He didn't even commit! It is sacrificing for one's child, taking up the cross for them, just like Christ sacrificed for His children. 

Fits of anger as a parent were not acceptable in ancient Hebrew culture when directed towards children. Christians then based their faith values on self-control and self-discipline, and a man who was insecure enough to control and punish a child was seen as less than a man, and weak for being so explosive due to insecurity. The Greek root word translated and refers to provocation to anger in vs. 21 is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to the offenses in the legal context of the Bible, meaning the torts and damages system under the Eighth Commandment, simplified and taken further after Christ as the slightest of personal offense perceived by the child, coming from parental entitlement, denoted by the Greek root word πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to wanting things from a child, or for children to do what you want them to do, to the point of seeking to impose said want onto a child, claiming the right to impose said want because "I am the parent/adult", usually in the form of anger, sexual entitlement, or both.

Anger, for an adult, was to be held back, and saved for a planned exchange with the neighbor that sinned against you, following rules of engagement and evidence, with the plaintiff who perceived abuse interrogating the defendant. An adult who was in and out of court was seen as a peacekeeper, and was excommunicated and shunned from the church community. An adult who was constantly lashing out at children? A perjuror. A liar, because children do no wrong in the eyes of God. Parenting then was attachment based, meaning children up to age 3 were swaddled next to mothers, or right aside of them in a cradle or manger. Children were to make demands on parents, and those demands were, in fact, legally binding, meaning if you didn't supply the demands of the parent, you could be charged by the community with dereliction of parental duties, even when a mother was cold and distant, not giving much affection and emotional care to her infant or young child. Striking a child? Unthinkable in the Old Testament, with all rod verses in Proverbs, Sirach, and Hebrews referring to the corporal punishment of young adult men in court, before their death sentence once they reoffended - children were not whipped because they could not stand trial due to youth inexperience and ignorance of the Law. In the New Testament, corporal punishment was a reason to excommunicate and shun a parent, and dereliction of duties would be one of the charges. Warmth with your child was mandatory under customary law, which was enforced law in the New Testament on gentle believers from the Hellenistic world who were used to spanking and punishing their child, thus refusing to assimilate into the dominant Hebrew culture of the church.

Getting angry then with your child was seen as taking them to court, when they were, in fact, too young to stand trial. A child getting angry with their parents was seen as a needy child, but a child worth the charity nonetheless, with parents being the ones shamed when they were too cold and strict, being too hard on their children. When a child was angry with their parent because they wanted attention, parents were inclined by customary law to simply give the poor child some attention, meaning affection, shared activities, and so forth. Most of the time, that's why they cry out of nowhere - they want attention, so give them some. Pro-social peerification is a gentle parenting term, meaning be a friend that provides for your younger friends, and this was the norm in ancient Israel as well. Parents weren't seen as above with minor children, but as attendant parents who doted on their children, by modern standards.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke children to anger though punitive or permissive parenting will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them burn in the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let the parents languish in eternal torment! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Reverent rebellion: Why children have the right to control adults from beneath

Many parents think they are top dog over their children, meaning in charge. Most parents in the United States want compliant children, meaning children that sit like a dog on command. The Bible is written to a context that encourages a certain type of family contention called reverent rebellion - parents are in charge of providing, but the reverent rebellion of children keeps the powers that be of parents in check, which are flawed greatly by mankind's depraved sin nature.

It says in Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things, as is well-pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they become discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to providing custody of children, which allows for ample rebellion of children. Providing custody was a position of servant and caregiver to a child's lawful and binding demands. Children had every right to demand things from parents, no matter how emphatic or abrupt, in a way that struck fearful, reverent conviction in parents due to the the closeness of relationships. Biblical obedience is based on heeding not the fearful voice of parents, but the reassurance and familiarity of the gentle voice of parents. Children imprint on the voice of their father and mother, and in a secure attachment situation, are automatically called back from wandering away from parents. The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to the offenses in the Bible, namely the torts and damages under the Eighth Commandment, and is summed up as the slightest of offense perceived by a child about entitled behavior from adults, as denoted by the Greek root word πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to wanting things from children to the point of seeking to impose said want onto a child. Pro-social entitlement is the other way around, with children expressing righteous entitlement towards children as safe people.

Children in ancient Israel and adjoining cultures were not shoved aside, but were included in society. The accepted contention there was that parents provided for their children selflessly, and children rebelled reverently against parents from day one, with this being allowed to keep the role of parents in check. Jewish culture then was attachment parenting culture, meaning infants up to age 3 were swaddled next to their mother's bosom in skin-to-skin contact with mother, and breastfed constantly, in constant and complete closeness to parents, with closeness lasting late into childhood with co-sleeping and parents allowing children to say whatever they want, and advocate for a need in any way shape or form, no matter how polite or impolite, seeing parents and trusted adults as safe people, running to them for comfort and safety, even in the teen years.

It was understandable for a child to want to rebel against parents, and fathers in particular encouraged it, wanting children to think for themselves, even when studying the Law with fathers. Children knew to be quiet in public, as parents allowed children to get out all their energy beforehand, including by protesting parent denials of things that absolutely won't work. Benign deprivation was seen as too harsh, and in fact alone was a violation of the Law, meaning entitlement leading to theft. Striking a child definitely was. Laws against striking or rebelling against parents only applied, in practice, to adult children, meaning a 4-year-old that struck her mother was not put to death. A 44-year-old man would definitely have been, if he was caught in the act and rebuked about it beforehand. 

Parents were seen as physical outlets and even punching bags for child upset and frustration, being a safe deposit box for every emotional upset and fear, with parents listening safely. Children then were fully accepted by their parents, and when this happens, parents have reverence for their child, to the point of righteous terror in inadequate times, striving to please children righteously by providing for them, supplying their every demand.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke children to anger through punishment or permissiveness will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let the parents burn in the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death, prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!